STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus RAJENDRAN

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 89 · Decided: 22-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
A 
v. 
RAJENDRAN 
SEPTEMBER 22, 199.9 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, M. SRINIVASAN AND 
B 
N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860-Ss.302 & 436-Murder-Accused setting his wife and 
children on fire-Circumstantial evidence establishing guilt of the accused 
beyond reasonable doubt-Held; accused liable to be convicted for offence C 
under S.302-Not rarest of rare case~Sentenced to imprisonment for life. 
Evidence Act, 1872-S.5-Murder-Conviction based on circumstantial 
evidence-Validity of. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 197J-S.366-Death reference-Duty of D 
High Court-Murder-Circumstantial evidence establishing guilt of the ac-
cused beyond reasonable doubt-Trial Court-Conviction and death sen-
tence-On death reference-High Court without re-appr~ciating and 
re-assessing the facts and law, acquitting the accused by giving benefit of 
doubt-Validity of-Held, High Court miserably failed in discharging its 
duty-It is requisite upon the High Court to re-appreciate and re-assess the 
entire facts and law for coming into independent conclusion without totally 
overlooking the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court-High Court is duty 
bound to consider the evidence afresh-Penal Code, 1860-Ss.302 & 436. 
E 
Respondent-accused was prosecuted for offences under Ss.302 and 
F 
436 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that accused was 
living with his wife and two daughters. He was jobless and was in the 
habit of drinking liquor. He often used to assault his wife demanding 
money. On the fateful day, there was a quarrel between the accused and 
his wife, P.W. 1, a neighbour interfered and pacified them. P.W. 4, sleeping 
in the house of P.W. 1 hearing the cries from neighbourhood, came out G 
and saw the hut of accused on fire. Accused was seen coming out from 
the roof, without raising any alarm. P.W. 4 entered into the hut and 
rescued the elder daughter. The wife of the accused and younger daughter 
were already dead. Accused confessed to P.W. 5 that he killed his wife 
by strangulation and set her body on fire. The elder daughter also sue-
H 
89 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A combed to her injuries in the hospital. The post-mortem report indicated · 
that the deceased wife died due to asphyxia. 
The Trial Court relying upon the circumstantial evidence, convicted 
the accused for offences under Ss.302 and 436 IPC and sentenced him to 
death. Accused did not prefer any appeal. However, on a death reference 
B under· S. 366 Cr.P.C., the High Court giving benefit of doubt, acquitted 
the accused. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant-State it was contended that the High 
Court has not discharged its duty as a Court of appeal and instead of 
C focussing its attention to the prosecution evidence, establishing different 
circumstances and instead of finding whether ultimate conclusion of the 
trial court on those circumstances can at all be sustained or not, has 
given benefit of doubt to the accused on mere surmises and, therefore the 
said order of acquittal cannot be sustained. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, and setting aside the order of the High Court, 
this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The charge of murder has been proved beyond 
reasonable doubt against the accused. The order of acquittal of high Court 
E is set aside and accused is convicted for offence under S. 302 IPC. [97-D] 
1.2. The law is fairly well settled that in a case of circumstantial 
evidence, the cumulative effect of all the circumstances proved, must be 
such as to negative the innocence of the accused and to bring home the 
charge beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the circumstances 
F which can be said to have been established by unimpeachable evidence 
are that the husband and wife namely the accused and the deceased were 
frequently quarreling and even on the date of incident they quarreled with 
each other from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., as has been deposed to by PWs 1, 3 
and 4. The incident namely the death of the deceased and her two children 
occurred inside the house of the accused and accused had been seen inside 
G the house at 9 p.m. on the date of incident, which has been established 
through the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 and PW 1 happens to be a 
neighbour. In course of the incident, the accused himself was seen coming 
out of the house through the roof as deposed by PWs 1 and 3 and the 
accused has also admitted this in his statement under S. 313 of the Code 
H of Criminal Procedure. The very conduct 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.